You may be aware from recent publicity about an exclusionary admissions practice at St. Paul School in Hingham, which does not receive support from the Catholic Schools Foundation. In light of those media reports, we thought it important to clarify the position of the Catholic Schools Foundation - - namely, that no school that promotes an exclusionary admissions policy or practice will be considered for support.

We believe a policy or practice that denies admission to students in such a manner as occurred at St. Paul’s is at odds with our values as a Foundation, the intentions of our donors, and ultimately with Gospel teaching. Our concern is the education of young people. We will not fund any school that that treats students and families in such a manner. This policy has been unchanged since our founding in 1983.

We are proud that Catholic schools are known for being welcoming communities for all students. So although this incident is disturbing, we know that it is isolated, not a policy of the Archdiocese, or indicative generally of the Catholic schools of the Archdiocese. Know that we appreciate all you do to make your schools places where all feel welcome.

Please contact me at 617-778-5981 if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance to you.

With hope for the students we serve and the future of Catholic education, I am

Sincerely yours,

Michael B. Reardon
Executive Director

From Reardon’s letter, you’d have no idea whatsoever was at issue in the St. Paul School case. He vaguely refers to “an exclusionary admissions practice” and ominously warns that “no school that promotes an exclusionary admissions policy or practice will be considered for support.” He speaks opaquely of “a policy or practice that denies admission to students in such a manner as occurred at St. Paul’s.” He uses lofty rhetoric about the values of the foundation, its donors, and “Gospel teaching.” He warns that they will not fund “any school that treats students and families in such a manner.” He uses touchie-feelie language about Catholic schools being “welcoming communities,” “where all feel welcome.” And he says that the St. Paul School incident “disturbing.”

So disturbing, apparently, that he can’t even speak forthrightly about the subject. The whole thing has to be shrouded with indirectness, shielded from frank discussion, and wrapped in comforting PC rhetoric.

It certainly isn’t the case that Reardon would want Catholic schools to accept any student whatsoever. If Catholic schools set no limits whatsoever on enrollment, the sheer volume of potential students would overtax the schools’ resources to the point that they couldn’t fulfill their mission. Schools must for economic reasons alone have “exclusionary admissions practices.” Similarly, some students are so disruptive that they cannot function in a normal classroom environment. Some students, frankly, belong in the juvenile justice system. So it isn’t a question of whether Catholic schools should have “exclusionary admissions practices.” The question is which exclusionary admissions practices they should have, and Reardon knows that full well. He just isn’t being forthright about the kind of exclusionary policy he has in mind.

Mr. Reardon may not understand the importance of being earnest, but let’s look at what he might have said had he chosen to be frank.

Dear School Administrators:

You may be aware from recent publicity that St. Paul School in Hingham has declined to enroll an eight-year old boy who has two lesbian “mothers.” St. Paul’s School does not receive support from the Catholic Schools Foundation, so we have no leverage over them, the way we do you. In light of the media reports, we thought it important to clarify the position of the Catholic Schools Foundation so that none of you get the idea of copying St. Paul’s example. Consider this letter a shot across your bow. Our policy is that no school will be considered for support if it either by policy or in practice declines enrollment for students with same-sex “parents.”

It does not matter how disruptive a situation such enrollments would create. It does not matter how difficult a position it would put the thus-enrolled children in. It does not matter how it would put pressure on teachers not to fully and vigorously proclaim Church’s teaching about marriage. It does not matter what other parents in the school might say about the way their children should be educated. None of these things count. What matters is that these children be admitted. This is the sine qua non.

We believe a policy or practice that denies admission to students with openly homosexual parents is at odds with our values as a Foundation, the intentions of our donors, and ultimately with Gospel teaching. Gospel teaching requires that we turn a blind eye to all the concerns named in the previous paragraph. The necessity of admitting children with openly homosexual parents trumps them all. There can be no rational disagreement on this point, and if you do disagree, you are opposing Gospel teaching.

Our concern is the education of young people. We will not fund any school that that treats students and families (note that I am classifying two homosexuals and a child as a family without qualification) in such a manner. You heard me right. We are so concerned with the education of young people that we will deny funding to all the other students in your school if even one child is not enrolled because he has openly homosexual parents. The need of the one outweighs the needs of the many. We care more about providing a Catholic education for this one student more than providing Catholic education for all the other students we would otherwise provide assistance to. This tells you what our values are. We will use financial scorched-earth tactics against any school that disagrees with us, even at the urging of the parents whose children attend the school. This policy has been unchanged since our founding in 1983. [Really? They would have yanked funds in 1983 over this issue?—ja]

We are proud that Catholic schools are known for being welcoming communities for all students except the ones who must be denied enrollment for various rational reasons that I am ignoring here. So although this incident is disturbing to politically correct sensibilities, we are thankful that it is isolated, not a policy of the Archdiocese, or indicative generally of the Catholic schools of the Archdiocese. Know that we appreciate all you do to make your schools places where all, including open and active homosexual partners but not including parents who would disagree with us, will feel welcome. And remember that if you fail in such efforts, we will withdraw all financial support from your school and the other students it has. Consider them financial hostages to this issue.

Please contact me at 617-778-5981 if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance to you.

With hope for the students we serve and the future of Catholic education, I am

Comments

Very efficiently written information. It will be helpful to everyone who uses it, as well as me. Keep doing what you are doing – i will definitely read more posts.
Regards,
http://www.stcatherinesacademy.org/ourexpertise/catholicschoolorangecounty.aspx

Posted by CM on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 7:45 AM (EST):

Joan,

Who would argue with that statement?

Any “policy” that puts teachers in a position where at any moment their names may end up in the press like Fr. Rafferty’s and the Catholic School Foundation (of which he is the Chairman of the Board) is going to send around a memo saying funding will get cut off for anyone who teaches homosexuals the teachings of the Church—his statement is about as truthful as the abortion contracts he signed while he runs around claiming he is prolife.

He is a Marxist/communist who puts on a show for the Vatican to further his own career while he is silencing the teachings of the Church on the grassroots level with thuggery.

Posted by Joan on Monday, May 24, 2010 9:56 PM (EST):

CM
I am sorry to hear about the situation in Boston. However, I thought your Bishop’s comments on his blog stating “. . . we recognize that, regardless of the circumstances involved, we maintain our responsibility to teach the truths of our faith, including those concerning sexual morality and marriage. We need to present the Church’s teachings courageously and yet in a way that is compassionate and persuasive.” was a promising step for Boston. I pray the Holy Spirit will guide your leaders to make the correct policies.

Posted by Joan on Monday, May 24, 2010 9:48 PM (EST):

Sara,
I love the exchange of ideas. I hope there are more people like me (and you) in the Catholic Church because discussing ideas allows us to know why we believe something, not just blindly accept it. The Catholic Church always has a reasoned explanation for it’s position, that is one reason I love it. I love consistency, not relativism.

I agree that my point is moot with regard to the Boston situation. However, it is not moot in the bigger picture of understanding the consistent application of moral principals that the Catholic Church is known for.
It is important for me to think that my position on homosexuals is right, because if I am right, then that means I am correctly understanding the teachings of the church. If I understand that, then maybe I can understand the difference between the way schools treat the kids of homosexuals, and they way they treat the kids of people who use birth control, or who are living with a spouse they are not married to in the eyes of the church. Don’t get me wrong, I love that they let those people send their kids to Catholic school, otherwise I couldn’t afford tuition for my kids, but it is hard for me to reconcile those instances unless I am right that celibate homosexuals, who don’t challenge curriculum can send their kids to Catholic school (at the discretion of the pastor).
I’m sorry my arguments are so detailed that they exhaust you. I suppose I should really take them to a trained apologist. But can you explain, how did my saying that ‘parishioners should question the decision of a Priest who does not use the teachings of the Catholic church as a standard in his discernment’ (that’s a paraphrase) mean that I want to be the arbiter of the bright line on homosexuality? You lost me there.

Posted by CM on Monday, May 24, 2010 9:24 PM (EST):

Joan,

If the lesbian couple were living apart and the mother said in her entrance interview that she respected Church teachings and has been trying to live by them and said “thank you Father”, if the teachers and the other children were never made aware of the situation and they were free to discuss Church teaching without fear of being outed in a newspaper as a bigot, or threatened - if everyone was respectful that the teachings of the Church are about bringing the next generation of Catholics into the Kingdom of Heaven—then what would be anyone’s beef?

Nobody would know.

There would be nothing to discuss.

Every teacher in the school would be free to teach. Every child would be free to ask questions and understand our teachings.

We do not have an administration in Boston that permits us to give an inch. They took a woman who has said she wants restrictions on the teachings of the Church made upon everyone in the school - and the Archdiocese has been lying about those demands.

If the Cardinal and his staff are liars about demands made by lesbian women to kibosh the teachings of the Church, then we have nothing further to discuss about the Archdiocese of Boston protecting the teachings of the Church.

Their intentions are to make every pastor admit every child of gay parents, even when those parents have made demands to silence the teachings of the Church.

This is what will happen across the diocese and across our country.

They have just played out any exceptions anyone would want to consider.

Turning this into a situation that Catholics shouldn’t make a judgment because the two lesbians may be living celibate is simply not applicable or rational.

Posted by Sara on Monday, May 24, 2010 8:31 PM (EST):

Joan you are exhausting to read. I hope there are less people like you in the Catholic Church. It seems like your whole point is to be “right” about homosexuality rather than actually making sense or make a point that is rational. Maybe you should ask the Pope and see if you can become the person who discerns the “bright lines”. I’m being serious. That seems to be where you want to go with all of your posts. If you don’t give the Pope a call you should consider the legal profession because you seem to want to argue a moot point. I’m sure your next comment will be to rationalize how your point isn’t moot but that will be proving my point that you cannot stop yourself from arguing useless points.

Posted by Joan on Monday, May 24, 2010 3:50 PM (EST):

Deb, Please see the part where I said I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BOSTON COUPLE. Neither was Father Serpa. I was only quoting him for the proposition that some homosexual couples (again, not the Boston couple) can live a celibate life, even while in the same home.

Sara, Please see the portion of my Friday post where I said this is a decision best left to the Pastor. (However, note that if the Pastor is allowed to “discern” it, then it is *not* a bright line test.) But, when I say, best left to the Pastor, I still believe the Pastor must be using the correct benchmark. If the Pastor is looking at being “inclusive” or making money for the school and ignoring the teachings of the Church on homosexual acts, then such *discernment* needs to be questioned by the parishioners and the Bishop.

Mrs. A, Again, if you read my post, you will see I am not talking about the Boston couple. I am *not* talking about people who want to change the curriculum, or even, for that matter, people who want their kids excluded from religion class. And for the record, I personally DO want a bright line that says people who have group sex (assuming it is continuing conduct, not something of the past) cannot send their kids to Catholic school. I say this because it is a teaching of the Church that such acts are wrong. It is not a teaching of the Church that having same sex attraction or having formerly been in a gay relationship (assuming a proper confession) is wrong. That’s why a bright line test saying “Kids whose parents identify as having same sex attraction cannot attend Catholic school” is a bad idea. It is a case where the circumstances must be weighed by the Pastor.
But you raise an interesting point. Would you allow a child in school if his gay parents do not challenge the curriculum? (Please don’t say ‘that’s ridiculous, why would a gay parent do that?’ There are plenty of parents who use birth control and don’t mind their child being taught that it is wrong).

Posted by Mrs. A. on Monday, May 24, 2010 2:43 PM (EST):

What I am worried about is a bright line that says no child of homosexual parents can attend a Catholic school.”

I can’t believe how silly this conversation has become. We also wouldn’t want a bright line that says no child of parents having group sex can attend a Catholic school.

This is why people having group sex, don’t get combative with the pastor if they want their child to attend Catholic schools.

Single mothers are not making demands upon the curriculum for other children in the school.

Fathers with addictions to pornography and masturbation don’t run to the press about private conversations he had with the pastor boohooing about discrimination.

If homosexual parents acted like the rest of us when “dicussing curriculum”, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Posted by Deb on Monday, May 24, 2010 10:31 AM (EST):

“Fr. Vincent Serpa, on Catholic Answers says he thinks it would be difficult for a homosexual couple to live a celibate life together, but “if they center themselves on the Lord and avoid whatever would lead them to sin, it is possible for them live a holy life. I know of some such older couples who do.”
So it is not as *absurd* as you seem to think.”

It is most certainly absurd for Fr. Vincent Serpa to make a mockery out of Catholic education by suggesting in these circumstances we pretend the two lesbians will be celibate to admit their children into Catholic schools.

If this was his response about how we face the future of Catholic education in these circumstances, he has gone mad.

Posted by Sara on Monday, May 24, 2010 9:48 AM (EST):

“What I am worried about is a bright line that says no child of homosexual parents can attend a Catholic school.”

That is the line. It’s not for us to discern it. If you are a priest, Joan, then feel free to move that line. Otherwise, it’s not our line as Catholic parishioners to discern.

Posted by Joan on Monday, May 24, 2010 9:18 AM (EST):

Maybe my question is confusing because I am not talking about the Boston couple. I agree their son should not go to Catholic school. What I am worried about is a bright line that says no child of homosexual parents can attend a Catholic school.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, on Catholic Answers says he thinks it would be difficult for a homosexual couple to live a celibate life together, but “if they center themselves on the Lord and avoid whatever would lead them to sin, it is possible for them live a holy life. I know of some such older couples who do.”
So it is not as *absurd* as you seem to think.
I could easily see two women of a certain age deciding that God is more important than their diminishing sexual desire, but wanting to stay in the same household for the sake of the children.
Sexual attraction is not an irresistible force.

Posted by CM on Sunday, May 23, 2010 7:05 PM (EST):

Joan,

By any chance, does your teenage daughter frequently go into her bedroom with her boyfriend and close the door and you believe she’s still a virgin?

The answer to your absurd contortion of these circumstances is “no”.

The two lesbians living together is a grave scandal.

The mother in this case said she did not want the teachings of the Church taught to her child and the Archdiocese has said they will impose a new policy upon every pastor in the diocese that accommodates lesbian mothers with similar requests.

This is about Cardinal O’Malley shutting down Catholic education for future generations of Catholics in Boston because he wants the 8 million dollars his donors are holding over his head.

He is a man who sold the children of the poor into the death of abortion for money.

It’s about the money and any and every child is at risk for exposure to sexual exploitation, psychological trauma, spiritual abuse and even death.

Posted by Joan on Saturday, May 22, 2010 7:05 PM (EST):

I am trying to be a good Catholic, and so I am asking this, not to argue, but to understand: IF a pastor determines that a couple with same sex attraction is truly living a celibate life, and decides that their child can attend his Catholic school, is the Pastor wrong? Should the diocese over rule and kick the kid out? I say no. I think the pastor can and should be allowed to determine when to let a child in under the circumstances and when not to. (Hint: saying that such a situation will never happen is not an answer. Thanks be to God, more and more homosexuals are wanting to return to the Church and are living a celibate lifestyle, so it could happen in 5 or 10 instances)
My second question is this: I know homosexual acts are against the church’s teaching. Can you point me to recent writings that say homosexuals (I mean, people with same-sex attraction) who are celibate are bad? If there is nothing wrong with them, then why am I wrong for saying their kids should be able to attend Catholic school?

Posted by Jane on Saturday, May 22, 2010 9:58 AM (EST):

It wasn’t JPII who commented about homosexuals recently. As recently as last week Pope Benedict was calling homosexuality an abomination and a threat to the faith. Mary S. didn’t say that you are relative. Mary said that if relativity in the Church continues the Catholic Church will have problems. I agree with you, Mary. I don’t think Joan’s argument makes a solid point against what you said. The likelihood of two people choosing to “parent” in the manner Joan suggests is low and Catholics shouldn’t change their thoughts/ belief systems or schools because of such a far fetched idea. I’m glad the Boston priest didn’t flinch about the facts and made a decision that was best for the school and the child. Keep the faith, Mary. American society has become relative and has led to many Catholics apologizing for taking a stand for their beliefs because it might hurt feelings. God Bless you, Mary.
Jane

Posted by Joan on Friday, May 21, 2010 7:51 PM (EST):

Mary S.,
It’s a shame you took the time to question my dedication to the Church’s teachings and then decided you can’t comment anymore. Nevertheless, for people who may be following the discussion, I will try to clarify my point in order to defend myself against your suggestion that my viewpoint exhibits relativism, rather than a strong holding to Catholic teaching.
First, let me answer your question. No, I do not think it is rational to believe this Boston couple will, at this point, just decide to leave their homosexual life-style and live together. Therefore, let me state more clearly that the argument I was making was not about the Boston couple. My argument is regarding the larger question of who we should exclude from Catholic school due to the sins of their parents. I am quite convinced that people can eliminate behaviors once they realize that such behaviors are sinful. Therefore, it is possible to believe that formerly practicing homosexuals who adopted or invitro-ed (made up word)a child, could return to the Catholic church and live celibate lifestyles. In fact I have heard on a conservative Catholic radio station of a childless, formerly homosexual couple doing just that. Your statement that “A homosexual relationship will have to stop being homosexual and each of the “partners” would have to choose ... a relationship that is one man and one woman in order for their relationship to be valid in the eyes of the church” is simply NOT TRUE. (Being celibate, without joining a religious order, is a valid vocation, a valid “lifestyle”.) So my belief is that in such a circumstance (NOT the Boston circumstance) the child should not be excluded from Catholic school. Yes, the child will have to face the facts that his “parents” made a mistake and will not be able to have a sacramental union. But if the parents are willing to let him learn that, then should the school really turn the child away? There cannot be a bright line in these circumstances. It has to be a factual determination best left up to the Pastor.
I’m not sure where you think I am disagreeing with JPII regarding homosexuals and adoption. But I think his comments were about why homosexuals should not adopt, not what to do about the children who are, nevertheless, adopted by homosexuals. If he did comment on that and it is contrary to what I have said here, please let me know.

Posted by Mary S. on Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:18 PM (EST):

Joan,

I took out the plank so I could process what you’re saying since you feel you’re argument is the “rational” argument. Do you really think it’s rational to believe that the idea of them just deciding to live together is plausible? In the real world that we live in how many people would decide 1) to live a homosexual lifestyle and 2) raise a child in a homosexual lifestyle and enroll their child in a Catholic school only to tell the school that they don’t want the school pushing it’s beliefs on their child—and then they’d suddenly just throw up their hands and say “I’m done with this. Let’s just raise this child like we’re roomates?”

Yes, both you and Mary R have rational arguments if you’re looking to bend the curve to it’s limits. I believe homosexuality is wrong. Really wrong. And, it wasn’t me, it was the Pope who said that homosexuals shouldn’t adopt children.

So, I’m sure the Pope’s rationale for why it’s wrong is probably not as rational as Joan’s reasoning on how it could possibly-some-how-be-okay in the church because maybe they’ll just become roommates! Problem solved.

That’s all I have to say on this matter. I think Catholics should draw some moral lines here because we’re going to have major problems if we continue down this “everything is relative” path.

Peace to you all. This is my last comment on this subject.

Posted by Joan on Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:51 PM (EST):

Mary R (really)
Yes, I meant Mary S

(So many Marys on a Catholic website - go figure)

Posted by Mary Rascher on Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:18 PM (EST):

Joan… I think you meant Mary S. because I totally agree with you and those were precisely the points I was trying to make.

Posted by Joan on Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:05 PM (EST):

Mary R.,
Regarding your appeal for rational thought rather than emotion - check out the plank in your own eye.
Rationally - it is quite easy to imagine several situations (I am deviating here from the actual situation in Boston)in which it benefits a child to know their parents are sinners. If my parent uses contraception, it is beneficial for me to know why the Catholic church teaches it is wrong, even if my Mom thinks its ok. Otherwise, I only get her side of the story. Similarly for a divorced and re-married father or a co-habitating brother, or oneself being born through in-vitro fertilization. It is always better to know the truth. Even when the truth hurts.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought homosexual *acts* were the sin and abomination, not possessing same-sex attraction. So it would, I think, be possible for a lesbian couple to repent of their sins and stay together in the same house for the sake of the children, and not be going against Catholic teaching. The private circumstances of their sex-life do not need to be brought out in public. And if people are scandalized and children are shocked because of what people *believe* is going on in the bedroom, then shame on them for making judgments without all the facts.
That is why these decisions are best left to pastors and principals. The true scandal here is that the Archdiocese of Boston is not standing behind the decision of the pastor that *these parents* will not be happy with their child learning the truth.
That’s just my reasoned, non-emotional, point of view.

Posted by Deb on Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:41 AM (EST):

Least we forget the memo circulated threatening to cut off grants to schools unless the diocescan policy of admitting children of gay parents even when those parents demand the teachings of the Church be removed from the curriculum so gay families will feel “welcome”— this is our religion and our Church being hijacked by dissident donors.

If the Cardinal’s PR team thinks we are going to be happy with waivers, they can take their waivers and put it where the sun doesn’t shine.

People are not the least bit fooled by his ridiculous statement that he is going to get advice from the Presbyteral and Archdiocescan Council - half of whom are either gay themselves or reject the teachings in moral teaching.

Posted by Deb on Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:36 AM (EST):

A waiver?

You don’t see the Cardinal trotting off to Gay and Lesbian meetings to teach the faith, do you?

That man has the unmittigated gall to put every teacher into a circumstance where Catholic Schools are places where it’s uncomfortable and sometimes impossible to teach the faith to the other children.

What do you think happened with the teachings of contraception?

Priests told Catholic Mommies it was okay to take contraception.

Women trusted their judgement and did it.

Schools and parishes became places where the teachings of contraception were met with huge messy conflicts.

This is precisely what will happen with the teachings of morality in sexuality.

Gay priests have spent the last 30 years in Boston teaching the faithful it is ok to enter into sexual relationships with members of your own sex.

Here comes phase 2.

The silencing of the Church inside of our own classrooms.

We are not going to accept any stinking waivers that is a fata morgana.

Posted by t on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:51 PM (EST):

every parent should have to sign a waiver that they understand this is a catholic school and as such the parents are aware that the catholic faith will be taught as specified in catechism. this will inform the parents and also protect the school from lawsuit. if parents sign the waiver they can’t complain.

catholics are letting themselves be caricatured on this specific issue. i am sure this isn’t playing well. we need to resolve this issue and reframe the problem any impasse as people trying to impose thier values on the faith.

Posted by Deb on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:36 AM (EST):

Mary R,

It’s distraction to bring in stories about situation that may be true or untrue about whether a slippery slope happened on your watch. You may not be privy to what really happened. None of us have any way to verify what you are saying. Bringing your stories to water down the impact of what is happening and them summarize with conjecture is simply not helpful but we all appreciate your empathy.

These things are all irrelevant to what is happening in Boston.

What we have in Boston is a mother who does not and did not want any of the children in the school to be taught the teachings of the Church and an archdiocese who is covering up what really happened with lies so they can use the situation to break down Catholic Education. First in Boston and then throughout the rest of the country.

Posted by Mary Rascher on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:47 AM (EST):

Deb, I agree…. if the mother isn’t willing for her child to be taught Catholic teaching there is no need for her child to attend a Catholic School. I was citing an example from my experience where the mother was concerned that her child learn correctly.

Mary S…..Well, let’s see, the woman was married to the childs’ father at one point so I believe there is a reasonable expectation that she could stop being a homosexual just as she stopped being hetrosexual at some point. I am sorry if you felt I was judging you, I just used your own words about sanctuary. I thought you said your kids are teens, if I am wrong I apologize. My last child graduates from Catholic High school this Sunday, so I know we all want to protect and shelter our kids. But the truth is, they do learn about homosexuality from friends and TV and the internet among other media. What should come before all that is education about it from the parents. As for your question about how this helps the child to know her mother is in an illicit relationship: The child was a young girl, and she may have questioned her own sexuality based on growing up with her mom and mom’s girlfriend. I don’t know if she did or not, but I do know that the young lady is now an adult and is not confused at this point in her life. I also know that she has continued to explore her faith and even goes to mass, so I feel it is reasonable to believe that since I know the Religious education she has had, and I have first hand experience with what has been taught to my own children at the same schools, I CAN say with reasonable certainty that the program was NOT watered down to accommodate her as a student. I think it would be a great disservice to water down our teachings. And if that is indeed happening in Boston, I am sorry to hear that. I must be blessed to live in a diocese that does care to teach according to the Church.

Posted by Mary S. on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:45 AM (EST):

Also, Mary R, every situation you cite has the ability to become a valid sacramental situation in the Catholic church. You are talking about something that is completely different from an open homosexual relationship. A homosexual relationship will have to stop being homosexual and each of the “partners” would have to choose to enter into a valid relationship that is one man and one woman in order for their relationship to be valid in the eyes of the church. This means that a child of a homosexual partnership would have to see his or her “parents” break up and each one would need to stop living a homosexual lifestyle (which means one of the partners would have to stop “parenting” him)and to eventually marry someone of the opposite sex. Do you see how this is completely different? Do you see how this goes beyond divorce, single parenthood, or a live in situation? Divorce your own situation from the equation and look at this rationally. We are talking about a whole different level of change that would have to occur in that child’s life. I think it was said best when it was said that we are talking apples and shoes.

Posted by Deb on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:32 AM (EST):

The deception is crystal clear to anyone who even reads the statements from the Archdiocese - much less dig below the surface to find out the mother actually DID NOT and DOES NOT want Catholic schools in the archdiocese to teach their religion.

Nobody would even have to know that what happened between the woman and the pastor is being lied about.

All you need to do is read Jimmy Akin’s fisking of the situation.

The truth is nowhere to be found in the Archdiocese of Boston under this Cardinal.

If this isn’t a case for Rome to step in and take recievership for the sake of the safety of children, the whole thing is a farce.

Posted by Deb on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:28 AM (EST):

Really, not only is the situation intolerable, it is an emergency because the danger to our children is worse than it has ever been before in the Archdiocese of Boston.

Fight for your faith and for our children.

Posted by Mary S. on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:27 AM (EST):

Mary R, give me a break. Your response is an emotional reaction to what I am saying—it’s also the exact reaction that enables the wishy-washy attitude about moral ethics that has wormed it’s way into the church. And really you shouldn’t judge me, thanks. I don’t send my children to a public school because I don’t agree with what is taught there. I don’t agree with my children being forced to learn about homosexuality when they are at a young age either.
This isn’t about Christianity. This is about a Catholic school and the fact that homosexuals living in an openly gay relationship are in a relationship that is not validated by the church. This is what you don’t have an answer for. A homosexual relationship will never be a valid relationship. Kids of divorce, of live in relationships, of single mothers all have the opprotunity to see their parents relationship validated in the eyes of the church. The child whose “parents” are homosexuals who live in an openly gay relationship will never see that relationship validated in the eyes of the church. Please directly answer how it could possibly help this child to know this fact?? Please leave the emotion and tell me rationally—how does it help a child to know that who he considers parents will never have a valid relationship in the eyes of the church and that their sexual relationship will always be wrong in the eyes of the church. Please address what I am saying instead of spouting “feelings”. Please address this fact…how is this helpful for the child?? Or should we “water down” our teaching for him?? You have yet to address what I am actually saying but have gone to great lengths with your emotional pleas.

Posted by Deb on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:25 AM (EST):

“At what point do we decide that this is not the sin of the child and they should not suffer, or at what point do we see that perhaps this child could benefit from learning what a true Catholic family values?”

At the point where she said she was not open to having anyone in the school be taught the teachings of the Church.

At the point where she used the enrollment of her child to make demands about what the Catholic Church teaches.

At the point where a private conversation about the state of her soul was twisted into “discrimination”.

You folks at the Chancery keep lying about what is going on.

Just as you lied about the abortion contracts you had signed, sealed and delivered in the Cartias Hospital system.

We have liars in the Boston Archdiocese controlling PR.

That was the problem when pedophiles were running loose.

Catholics have got to stand up and demand lying administrations be removed because when administrations have proven themselves to be lying, any situation where a pedophiles is found is going to be lied about.

This situation is intolerable.

Posted by CM on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 7:15 AM (EST):

Michael Reardon and Grassa O’Neil (why do these women have convoluted names—two first names and two last names?) have been appointed to take over “Development” in the Archdiocese of Boston.

Two people who misrepresented what happened inside of the meeting with Fr. Rafferty and Cindy Duggan, lied about the fact that the mother is insisting upon a school where the teachings of the Church are not taught to the students, are creating a “new policy” where Catholic schools will no longer teach the faith to keep their dissident wealthy donors satisfied—these people are taking over “Development”.

The last orthodox man in the Cardinal’s cabinet has been squeezed out of his position to put this regime into place.

Wake up Catholics - you are losing your right to have your children’s discernment formed so that they can know what choices obstruct their salvation.

This is a major assault on the Roman Catholic Church that we cannot afford to be silent about because a “Cardinal” is leading it. It’s time to put the cult idea to pasture that we can’t criticize what a Bishop is doing.

Please stay tuned into the blog BryanHehirExposed for action items.

The next generation of children is losing their religion in this country.

Posted by Mary Rascher on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 3:47 AM (EST):

Mary S…
I am well aware what the Church teaches about homosexuality. What I am saying is that the mother of said child was not openly flaunting her lesbian partner and causing scandal. Most of the parents didn’t know at all. I thought it was very respectful of the mother to care enough not to create scandal. At what point do we decide that this is not the sin of the child and they should not suffer, or at what point do we see that perhaps this child could benefit from learning what a true Catholic family values?

I agree with the poster that said that our schools would be empty if we filtered out the contracepting parents children or the divorced parents kids or any one of several other typical sins of the parents. We had bigger fish to fry with the family of muslim kids at our school. They knew they had to take religion but for some reason the oldest child used the class to show how wrong we are and was constantly sent to the office for disrupting class. Should we ban all other religions or just non-Christian ones? How about just teaching the kids? How about lifting them up and not watering down our faith?

The funny thing is, I was a single mom at the time. Not by choice of course but, when I had to go into the hospital for surgery during the school week, this mom took in one of my kids, just as others took in my other kids so that they would be cared for and make it to school. I had no idea of her preferences, and I considered her a pretty good friend. I don’t ask people about their sex life, nor do I assume anything about it. I can tell you, my child was well cared for and I am forever grateful to the mom for helping me many times besides that event.

I saw many wondrous things at that school… I saw children lead their non-Catholic families to conversion. I saw kids that taught me a thing or two about mercy and kindness. I saw the “upright Catholic” families fail to show love and compassion that we should all be teaching our kids. I also had a chance to impact the kids too. When some of these kids saw that I required my kids to volunteer right along with me, other parents asked why and then did the same. How else do we teach our children?

While many of you have probably led solid moral Catholic lives, don’t you think that the children of sinners deserve to learn the Truth too? Really! My kids would have been excluded from Catholic schools by some of your standards. My annulment wasn’t yet decided when they started at the school. I truly believe that you all mean well, but aren’t you doing exactly what St Paul complained that the Corinthians were doing? If you live totally separate from the world how can you think that you could have a positive impact and spread the message of the gospel?

Mary S. you say you pay for sanctuary for your children. They shouldn’t need sanctuary if you are teaching them at home too. I totally understand your wish to protect them from the outside world but you can’t. You have to teach them to live morally in an imperfect, immoral world. One of the hardest things my husband and I had to do was to teach his daughter (from a previous marriage that has been annulled) that sex outside of marriage is wrong with a mother that was pregnant with another mans child when her mom and dad were still married. She knew her sister was conceived before the divorce and before her mom remarried. Her mother was not happy with us for teaching her but we made a choice to not water down our teaching. Of course we didn’t directly tell her that her mom was wrong, we taught her the 10 commandments and when she asked what adultery was, we told her.

Every moment is a teaching moment for any kid. A kid of a lesbian mom is no exception. We teach hard Truths out of love and concern. We cannot lose sight of the fact that our obligation is to let God work through us to save souls. By thought, deed, or action… Kids do learn from what we do more than what we say.

To those Catholics who may suppose that all same-gender couples desiring a Catholic education for their biological or adopted children demand that Catholic schools disregard their obligation to teach what the Church teaches about marriage and chastity, I recommend the article entitled “Sins of Admission” in the April 23, 2010, issue of *Commonweal*. You don’t have to agree with everything in *Commonweal*—I don’t—to conclude that this article is a helpful contribution to this discussion:

http://commonwealmagazine.org/sins-admission

A final thought: what will the little boy in Hingham, Massachusetts, think of the Catholic Church when, in adolescence, he becomes fully aware of the controversy in which he figured? Will he regard the Church as representing charity and justice, or will he have another reaction?

Keep and spread the Faith.

Posted by Schmaltinzki on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:23 AM (EST):

Greg,

It’s time to run back to the Archdiocese for more talking points. Whatever sins everyone else’s parents in the school are committing, not a single one of them has asked to have the moral teaching against their sin excluded from the curriculum.

The Archbishop has lost control of the Archdiocese. The people with the money are now in control and they are gay activists. The gay woman was a prop. It was all a set up. She was the tool for the donors to memorialize the Cardinal’s new policy: Stop teaching human sexuality.

It’s the homosexualization of Catholic children. More fodder for the pedophiles in fifteen years. Their sources have dried up.

Posted by K-Wing on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:21 AM (EST):

Right on, Jimmy. Not much more needs to be said. If an entity uses the word Catholic (capital C) like a trademark, then it should stand behind what that trademark represents.

Posted by greg the beachcomber on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:50 PM (EST):

At the risk of sounding reactionary, would it be too much to ask Catholic schools to deny admission to children of ANY parents openly living lifestyles contrary to Church teaching, homosexual, adulterous or otherwise? Shouldn’t Catholic schools be fairly solid on being, I don’t know, Catholic?
By turning a blind eye to issues like divorce, remarriage and cohabitation, don’t the schools send the same message we want to avoid with homosexuality, i.e., that it’s really not so bad, everybody does it?
Teachers are only human, and they’d rather spare their students’ feelings when possible, so hard truths, such as the Church’s teachings on marriage and homosexuality, inevitably get soft-pedaled when the teacher knows that some of the students’ parents are divorced or just living together.
It really is no wonder that so many Catholic schools aren’t particularly “Catholic,” when so many of the students don’t live in Catholic homes.

Posted by CM on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:16 PM (EST):

“I was taught it was the duty of the teaching church to teach revealed truth, administer the sacraments and work for the salvation of souls. This child has a soul. Is it simply too hard to work for the salvation of this one?”

But is precisely what Fr. Rafferty tried to do with the parent is explain how a soul is cared for with truth.

The mother put down the gauntlet.

No truth while her son is in the school.

No truth for her child.

No truth for son’s classmates.

There is no salvation without the truth.

Not only is it too hard to work for the salvation of souls when truth is forbidden to be taught, it is impossible.

Posted by Joseph Condon on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:45 PM (EST):

I was taught it was the duty of the teaching church to teach revealed truth, administer the sacraments and work for the salvation of souls. This child has a soul. Is it simply too hard to work for the salvation of this one?

Posted by Mary S. on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:33 PM (EST):

Dan,

Thanks for saying it more clearly than I was. Sarah, it isn’t my intention to be snarky but I am a mother of teenagers and I see very clearly the cultural war that is coming at my children from all angles in the media. I see so clearly that the direction of the culture is moving at a severe angle away from what I grew up in just 20 years ago. I see in the media that our society has become more relative and passive about right and wrong—I see in my teenagers that this is a huge problem for impressionable minds. I am by no means a perfect person but I want to think that a Catholic school I pay money for is a sanctuary for my children where they can learn and have some time away from the constant barrage of “media-relative-morality” which is generally not what I believe in as a Catholic. We don’t live in a bubble but I would like for the Catholic school to be a sanctuary that supports my morals and traditions as a Catholic. That means a Catholic school cannot support an openly gay couple who puts their child in a Catholic school. I am just hoping that the Church can be a little less relative than popular culture PC is. This doesn’t mean we can’t love as Christians but I really believe we are in a cultural war here in America and for our children, for my children and even your children someday, Sarah, we must start drawing some definitive moral lines. The media, the popular culture, and politicians should not dictate those moral lines—I hope.

Posted by CM on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:30 PM (EST):

Well done.

The topic seems to keep derailing into the notion that Fr. Rafferty was assessing the parent’s state of grace in order to qualify the child for enrollment. This is false.

A decision appears to have been made to defend Cardinal O’Malley’s actions with the tome that Fr. Rafferty and Cindy Duggan committed a hate crime. Ergo they are trying to prove this allegation in com boxes by alleging the state of grace of heterosexual parents and denying admission to heterosexuals who are “living in sin” are not assessed.

And so they ask - why should homosexual parents be assessed?

The state of grace of heterosexual or homosexual parents had nothing at all to do with why the discussion with the mother led the priest and the principal to recant their invitation to enroll the child.

Michael Duggan and Mary Grassa O’Neil have alleged that during this meeting the mother expressed her willingness to have her son taught human sexuality in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

The mother said during the meeting the teachings of the Church were indeed explained to her.

The mother said that she does not want her son to attend a Catholic school that teaches human sexuality in accordance with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

This has nothing to do with her state of grace or any other parents state of grace.

She was offended by the teachings of the Church and she does not want her son to be so offended. She does not want her son to go to a school where Catholic principles are taught.

Everything else being offered here as an excuse to slander a priest and a principal as bigots on the Archdiocescan website is nonsense.

Michael Reardon and Mary Grassa O’Neil, the Cardinal and his Cabinet agreed to characterize what took place as discrimination. They approved a memorandum that pronounced Fr. Rafferty and Cindy Duggan as being guilty of discrimination and had that memorandum widely circulated throughout the archdiocese.

They have astoundingly placed a similar statement on their website about the terrible act of “discrimination”.

They have announced they are putting new policies into place to “stop the discrimination”

These are facts that cannot be disputed because they are public.

What we are left with is a question about whether the Archdiocese is fabricating the discrimination or if the mother expressed her opposition to Fr. Rafferty in such a way that he knew he was faced with watering down the teachings of the Church to keep the woman and her son from being offended or to accept her son as a student and teach the child human sexuality that is against the wishes of the mother.

In order to believe the Archdiocese’s version of the events, you have to believe that the mother still wants her child to be taught the teachings of the Church. However, this has been repudiated by the mother.

The archdiocese story gelling for anyone?

By the way, the Cardinal’s public relations team makes close to one half million dollars combined.

Posted by Dan Morgan on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:03 PM (EST):

Sue,
I think it was Sarah who said she didn’t have any children yet. We’re in violent agreement. You married a non-Catholic in a heterosexual union of two biological opposites but agreed to raise your children Catholic (school, sacraments, values). That’s totally fine! No questions should have been asked and no harm done to your children. Marriage between a man and woman is valid, even if one of the people is non-Catholic.

For the benefit of others, our lesbian couple is different—it’s comparing apples and shoes. They are on the record as saying that neither is Catholic, and though they consider themselves Christian, neither goes to church. It’s likely the boy was never baptized Catholic. Nor is there any indication they intend to raise the kid Catholic. There is no indication they plan to turn from their homosexual livestyle and allow the kid to be raised by a man and woman as natural law and the Catholic Church would desire, thus their partnership/union can never be valid in the eyes of the church.

Sarah, you’re correct, it may indeed “appear” to be different standards for people based on whether or not we can visibly see their sin, and maybe that’s the crux of the confusion here. But many of those other situations may have involved what was once a valid marriage, or a relationship which has the possibility of becoming valid one in the eyes of the Church. The homosexual relationship by design never has the possibility of becoming valid, so it’s more visibly out of line with Church teachings. Hope this helps.

Posted by Karen Elia on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:32 PM (EST):

We need,without compromise, to uphold Catholic teaching about same sex attractions in all Catholic institutions. We also need to educate ourselves as to the findings relating to the causes of same sex attraction.( The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, Shame and Attachment Loss by Dr Joseph Nicolosi and The Heart of Same-Sex Attraction by Janelle Hallman )Same sex attraction often stems from trauma in childhood including psychological and/or physical trauma. If we turn our doors and hearts to the souls who most need urgent healing are we not victims of spiritual pride?

Posted by Sue on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:32 PM (EST):

Dan: You state you have no children yet. I was married to a non-catholic in the Catholic Church (in those days, the rectory). My husband always supported me and our children in following the Catholic faith,(he was asked this question by the priest, before we married in the Church) Both our children went to Catholic Grade and High Schools. My husband attended all things going on with them in the school year, their First Communion, Confirmation and even including Mass occasionally. (He loved church suppers) He never converted. I was never asked any questions concerning our marriage. I only had to show the children’s Baptism Certificates. Regardless of whether a married Catholic couple follows every law in the Church, (that is between them and the Church & Confessor), their children should always have the opportunity to have a Catholic School upbringing. You don’t harm the child for what the parents do.

Posted by Sarah on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 7:43 PM (EST):

Dan,

Point well taken. I agree that in those situations of sexual sin (excluding homosexuality) there is a possibility for conversion. But another point that I have to raise is this: is anyone asking the heterosexual parents about their sexual sin? I don’t have children yet, so I don’t know how this school enrollment thing works. Do parents have to answer questions attesting to the fact that they’re living the faith in every aspect of their lives? If not, then how do we know which families are living in opposition of Church teaching and which ones are not? If no one is asking, how can they be confronted with the truth and encouraged to change. It *seems* that it might be the case that it requires less detective work on the part of school officials to figure out if a child is being raised by two men or two women, then to ask the uncomfortable questions regarding other sexual disorders that are just as likely to be occurring in the school.

I am all for standards. In fact, I DO think that all Catholic parents who want to enroll their children in schools *should* have to attest that they’re living the faith in every aspect of their lives, and to be confronted with the truth if they are not. But what makes me uncomfortable is when there seem to be different standards for people based on whether or not we can visibly see their sin.

The tone of this com-box is pretty snarky, so I think this’ll be my final answer. Good night and God Bless.

Posted by Dan Morgan on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 7:13 PM (EST):

Stephen and Sarah,

I’m afraid you are still missing the poinnt that Mary S has made very well in several posts.

First of all (Part A), a homosexual couple—especially one that is “married”—is permanently depriving their child of that child’s right (according to natural law) to have both a mother and a father. They are also living in state of chronic mortal sin, for which they would appear to not be repenting and trying to move away from. As Mary said, a homosexual relationship is not a valid relationship in the eyes of the church and there is nothing that homosexuals can do to make their “marriage” or co-habitating relationship valid. Can you both pause for a moment and let us know if you accept that part of the equation at least?

Now, let’s look at the other situations. (Part B) The sacrament of Matrimony as the church defines it is between a man and a woman. If a child was conceived and born in a valid marriage that ends in divorce, there at least once was a valid marriage, and there is the possibility that the child’s male or female parents will enter a valid marriage. A man or a woman who are co-habitating, who get divorced, who contracept, look at pornography, who live in invalid marriages according to church teaching DO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY TO MAKE THEIR SITUATION VALID. (e.g. repent from sin of pornography, get an annulment for previous marriage to have valid second marriage). Do you accept this principle?

Heterosexual couples or individuals can make their sitation valid in the eyes of the Church. There is no route for two homosexuals to have a valid relationship in the eyes of the Catholic church. So you’re comparing apples and shoes. In your responses, could you let us know if you agree or disagree with either Part A or Part B, or both?

Also, check out bryanhehirexposed.wordpress.com for Dale O’Leays excellent column on this same topic

Posted by Mary S. on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 7:11 PM (EST):

It is not unjust discrimination to not allow them to enroll their children in a Catholic school when they don’t want the Catholic religion taught to their children. You still haven’t shown me where it says how people in an invalid homosexual relationship can validate that relationship within the Catholic Church. Since you’re throwing around your own interpretation of these passages I’d love to hear you cite it. Thanks.

Posted by Stephen M. O'Brien on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 6:54 PM (EST):

What the Church tells us in *CCC* 2358 in opposition to unjust discrimination against homosexually oriented persons has already been cited. Further, *CCC* 1651 (also cited previously) encourages couples invalidly married after divorce to raise their children as Catholics, thus implying that they should enroll those children in Catholic schools. Logically, there is no reason why this encouragement should not be applied to parents, guardians, and children in other situations that conflict with Catholic teaching.

Posted by Mary S. on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 6:17 PM (EST):

Stephen, can you cite catechism that supports your advocacy—which says we should allow same sex couples who don’t want the Catholic religious views on sexuality taught to their child (see: the Boston incident)into Catholic schools? I’m not talking about social justice *theory*.

Please, also, cite where it references how a gay couple can live a sacramental life if they are openly living a gay lifestyle? Is there a process through which they can live a sacramental life within the church which would involve them validating their union? No. Unless they want to stop living as a gay couple they is no process for mainstreaming the gay lifestyle in the Catholic church.

A man and a woman who are living together, or who are divorcing, or who have remarried can go through processes which can eventually allow them to live a sacramental life. This is not true for a gay couple. Period.

When was the last time that a divorced couple, a couple living together, or a remarried couple complained about not wanting the religious aspects of the Catholic school taught to their child? When?

Is that the sound of crickets chirping??

Posted by Sue on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:32 PM (EST):

Non-Catholics who send their children to Catholic school,KNOW what will be taught in Religion Classes—when my children went to Catholic grade school, non-Catholics were admitted and the parents knew what to expect. As to a gay couple, gays especially know that the CC is against their life-style so they know that will be taught. Catholic schools like to be known as Parochial and not Private, but actually they are private, because they go by their own rules, not the rules of the public school system. The only rulings they have to follow is what is to be taught as to the (three R’s)—-nothing to do with religion, or even deportment. I think the lesbian couple just wants to rile things up a bit. They are very aware of how things are as to their way of life and how it is perceived by others. They can easily apply to a non-sectarian private school.

Posted by Deb on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:25 PM (EST):

Cite a case where a father shaking up with a woman has insisted a Catholic school stop teaching the moral principle of monogamy and called this discrimination.

Until you can cite such a case, your assertions that the situations are comparable do not hold water.

Posted by Sue on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:25 PM (EST):

This is not about the Catholic Faith or the teachings of the Church - this is about pushing an agenda and money. The Lesbian couple certainly can find an outstanding school to educate the little boy of one of them. So it is not about education. These women have chosen to use this 8 year old boy as a “pawn” to place the gay agenda in the “limelight” and hopefully at the same time embarrass the Catholic Church. I am sure that there will be talk shows ad-nauseum for which they will be compensated. Sounds like a win-win for the lesbian couple. I would tell Michael Reardon and the Catholic Schools Foundation to keep their money. I would tell the women to send the boy to one of the excellent schools in the area that has been established to teach and foster the traditions, morals and beliefs that they hold so dear. Would they not want the boy to grow up and hold these same beliefs and pass them on to his own family? Isn’t that the normal criteria for choosing faith-based school? Perhaps they would be more comfortable in the Lutheran, Baptist or Islamic School? Have they considered any of those choices? Oh - I forgot - this is not about education it is about the gay agenda vs the Catholic Church. That poor child!!!

Posted by Deb on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:21 PM (EST):

Cite a case where a father is shacking up with a woman and he has challenged the Church to stop the affairophobia and discrimination.

People who are shacking up, to my knowledge, have never insisted a
Catholic school cease and desist from teaching monogamy as a moral principle.

When they do, we can talk about it.

Right now, we are talking about a Cardinal and his staff who has posted that Fr. Rafferty and Cindy Duggan has committed an act of discrimination.

Yet, we have the mother being straightforward saying she doesn’t want Catholic schools to be teaching her child principles that conflict with her own and if they do, she will not send them there.

The Cardinal cannot post a slanderous statement and have conflicting information and not answer questions about it.

Sorry - that is not going to fly.

The faithful have a duty to protect our priests and our lay teachers and the teachings of the Church.

Posted by Stephen M. O'Brien on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:56 PM (EST):

No Catholic should question the need for Catholic schools to teach *all* elements of the one true Faith, including all the points that the Church makes about same-sex attraction (*CCC* 2357-2359). Still, it just does not follow that Catholic schools have no moral choice but to refuse admission to children whose mothers, fathers, and guardians are living in situations condemned as sinful by the Church’s teaching authority as it speaks to us in the name of Christ.

Again, are you willing to urge school administrators to investigate the marital situation of *every* parent of a child in a parish school, and are you willing to ask those administrators to expel the children of all mothers and fathers who are not validly married? Furthermore, are you willing to acknowledge as invalidly married those parents who have remarried after having obtained unjustified annulments during the post-Vatican II crisis in the Church’s human dimensions? If you are open to supporting such massively imprudent and disruptive actions, on which principles of the Faith do you base your decision? Can you cite sections of the new catechism to ground your advocacy?

I believe that we should all agree on the following point: if a Catholic school accepts the children of parents and guardians who are living in sinful relationships, neither the school administration nor the Catholic community is thereby denying that those relationships are immoral.

Posted by Deb on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:15 PM (EST):

Donors who dissent from the teachings of the Church, the Kennedy School of Government and Boston College National Roundtable of Leadeship are now in control of the teachings of the Church in Boston.

Grassroots Catholics are pealing Fr. Rafferty from under the bus.

Tune in to BCTV where Fr. Bryan Hehir from the Kennedy School of Government will be running a new television series with the National Roundtable of Leadership on “Church Management”.

The request is a simple one. We want the archdiocese to admit what this mother has already stated in the newspapers.

She did not and does not want any Catholic School her child attends to teach the teachings of the Church and the Archdiocese is making this the policy across the board in Boston.

Posted by Deb on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:07 PM (EST):

If you don’t believe Barb, do some searches on the Archdiocescan paper “the Pilot”.

Look for pictures at the Catholic School Foundation Fundraiser.

There you will find Bob Kraft with his arm around the Cardinal.

Grabbing his spine and giving it a yank.

Run some googles about gay marriage and bob kraft.

Posted by Barb on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:04 PM (EST):

But, this is exactly what donor Bob Kraft and others who supported gay marriage and who are now funding the school have told the Cardinal they want.

The Cardinal is complying with this request.

Fr. Rafferty is the sacrificial lamb.

Posted by Barb on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:03 PM (EST):

The Archdiocese of Boston is misrepresenting what happened.

The Archdiocese is pretending this mother was open to having the school teach human sexuality in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

She was not.

That is why Father Rafferty could not make her happy and comply with her request.

If he complied with her request, the other children in the school would not hear the teachings of the Church.

Why can’t the Cardinal be honest about this?

It has been published in the newspapers.

Posted by Barb on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:58 PM (EST):

This is not about a private matter between Joey and the principal.

This is about a mother who has stated in the newspapers that she did not and does not want the Catholic School her son goes to taught human sexuality in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

This is about the Archdiocese refusing to admit those salient facts.

The mother did not and does not want any Catholic school the Archdiocese funds be a place where the teachings of the Church are in conformity with Catholic doctrine.

The archdiocese policy wonks are busy setting that policy in stone.

People have a right to know what is going down.

Posted by ralyge on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:48 PM (EST):

Hi Barb, I’m an upfront king of person too and would appreciate more transparency. The school and diocese are between a rock and hard spot though. There is professional protocol reguiring strict confidetiality of meetings between school representatives and parents/children. Failure to follow this protocol,immediately opens another can worms: more law suits. Sometimes it is impossible for a school representative to respond because any response implicates them. While this is frustrating, it also guarantees that when you or I have to talk to the principal about our concerns or what Joey did yesterday, we can be sure the whole world won’t hear about it…at least not from them.

Posted by Barb on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:17 PM (EST):

Somethign stinks.

Posted by Barb on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:16 PM (EST):

The Archdiocese of Boston needs to come clean on this.

The mother did not and does not want her child taught the teachings of the Catholic Church on human sexuality.

Not only does she not want her own child excluded from those teachings, she wants everyone in the school excluded from those teachings.

The Archdiocese has now said they will make sure this mothers expectations are met and there is no more “discrimination” by setting a new “policy”.

This is all in black and white this in the newspapers.

Why is the Archdiocese pretending this is something that it is not, silencing the priest and the principal and instead controlling PR in com boxes?

Posted by Barb on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:07 PM (EST):

Wow. Thanks Madeline!

It looks like the mother has stated she has just come to find out what the Church teaches on homosexuality.

Wait, is that right?

Does it say she is uncertain about what the Church teachs about their homosexual family and she will hold an inquisition so she can get a real clear picture of what the child will be taught—and if she doesn’t like it, she will not enroll her son?

This can all be cleared up by the Archdiocese.

Let Fr. Rafferty talk.

Why did they silence him?

The mothers were perfectly willing to let their child hear the teachings of the Church that two women parenting a child as lovers is intrinsically evil and does violence to a child?

But now they are not?

Why does there have to be secrecy about what transpired with Fr. Rafferty?

But this mother does not want the teachings of the Church taught to her son:

But the woman said she was uncertain she would enroll her son in another Catholic school because she needed to learn more about their educational programs.
She added: “I will be a little bit more guarded in my questioning so I’ll be able to have a real clear picture where they stand.

Why can’t the archdiocese be honest about what happened inside of the meeting with the pastor?

Posted by Sue on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:40 PM (EST):

Why do people make a big deal over things. The fact is that if a Protestant,Jew,any person of any religion or a homosexual parent or single parent or a parent who never married, decides to and can afford to send their child to Catholic school, then they sign a paper saying that child must attend catechism classes, Mass, etc (meaning they are taught everything about Catholicism) Otherwise they don’t send them. I assure you all of these kinds of parents are aware of what is taught in the Catholic school.

Posted by Sarah on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:29 PM (EST):

Mary, I am not against the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, or any of the Church’s teaching for that matter.

The question I am asking here is why the line is drawn at homosexuality when God has also made plain that contraception, divorce, cohabitation, pornography and all sin is wrong. You say that people who are openly gay are living opposed to Catholic teaching. You are correct. In fact, any person/couple who uses contraception, co-habitates, has had a divorce and remarried (without an annulment), or uses pornography is living opposed to Catholic teaching. Yet for some reason the children of those who contracept, who co-habitate, who have been divorced and remarried, or who use pornography are NOT thrown out of Catholic schools en masse. Why not? Sexual sin is sexual sin.
All I’m pointing out is that if schools are going to start punishing the children of people who commit sexual sin (which includes contraception, divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, cohabitation, and pornography)it doesn’t seem to make much sense to me to draw the line at kicking out the children of a homosexual parent, while not punishing the couples who contracept, cohabitate, divorce and remarry, or use pornography by kicking their children out of school.

If you (or anyone else) can give a satisfactory answer as to why this is the case, I will be happy to be proven wrong.

Posted by Stephen M. O'Brien on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:04 PM (EST):

From the Catholic perspective, it’s simply untrue that “marriage between a man and a woman can always become valid in the eyes of the church because the church believes that marriage is about a woman and man getting married so even invalid situations between a man and a woman have the opportunity to become valid.” According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, a person in a valid, consummated Catholic marriage can never validly marry again as long as his or her spouse is living. Please see sections 1640, 1649-1651, and 1665 of the new catechism.

Moreover, we should recall that the Church, in addition to condemning same-sex acts as sinful, also teaches the following as official teaching concerning people tempted to commit such acts: “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (section 2358 of the new catechism). It seems to me that Catholic schools that refuse admission to children living with homosexual parents and guardians are imprudently disregarding that section of the catechism—just as those schools would be imprudently disregarding section 1651 if they were to decline to accept the children of mothers and fathers living in invalid marriages.

Posted by Orange County Kevin on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 1:47 PM (EST):

I am amazed that so many people would find it odd that an openly lesbian couple would want their children to have a Catholic education. Of course they do! The Lord invites all people into his house and anyone who suffers the children to come unto Him will have to answer for it.

When I get married to another man, my husband and I will send our children to Catholic school—maybe we’ll even do Seton home study.

I just can’t for the life of me understand why some miserable people run around trying to kick everyone out of the Church. Get a life.

Posted by Gary J Sibio on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 1:33 PM (EST):

We also need to keep in mind that this may be a set-up on the part of the lesbian “parents.” Unless they are brain dead, they know the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. They obviously disagree. Why would they submit their child to the Catholic view? Perhaps they are considering a law suit. It would not surprise me. This is the second case like this that I know of recently. I’m wondering if there is an effort underway to just keep socking the Catholic Church with law suits.

Posted by Rick DeLano on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 1:10 PM (EST):

Bravo to Jimmy Akin for a superb example of translation from Modspeak. May the private donations to this Foundation dry up faster than the melting of a snowball on a Death Valley Fourth of July. Let these donors gravitate instead to Catholics schools. Like St. Paul’s.

Posted by Margaret on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 1:07 PM (EST):

Clearly this was planned with other motives by the the two “mothers”. They have how many other schools to chose from why chose a Catholic school where the children are taught that acting on homosexual tendencies is a mortal sin? I think it was out of love for the child that they asked the child to leave. When children are young life is black and white. Comments that children say can be cruel. Can you imagine what this child would go through if the other children start taunting the kid with your “mothers” are going to burn in hell? You can try and stop the kids from doing such things but they manage to still get the jabs in on the sly. Why would someone chose to use their child to get their agenda shoved down the throats of people who don’t what it? The child is the one that will suffer.

Posted by Mary S. on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 1:00 PM (EST):

Stephen, I very much agree with the choice of this school and I will tell you why your argument is wrong:
“Please allow me to post this question to Catholics who agree with the thinking of the above administrators: are you also willing, out of consistency, to deny admission to all students whose mothers and fathers are cohabiting, or whose parents are living in marriages that are invalid according to the Church’s teachings on the sacrament of Matrimony?”

The sacrament of Matrimony as the church defines it is between a man and a woman. A man and a woman who are co-habitating, who get divorced, who live in invalid marriages according to church teaching do have the ability to make their situation valid. This only applies to heterosexual couples.

A homosexual relationship is not a valid relationship in the eyes of the church and there is nothing that homosexuals can do to make their marriage valid.

Therefor—when we teach children of broken homes, of step-parent situations—these children learn that while their parents situation is not valid in the eyes of the church that it can become valid.

There is no route for two homosexuals to have a valid relationship in the eyes of the Catholic church so you’re comparing apples and oranges.

I’ll ask this question again: I wouldn’t want my children attending a school where homosexuality was validated and heterosexuality was labeled invalid. Why would homosexuals want their children to attend a private school (which suggests choice since it’s not public) where their relationship is not and cannot ever be valid as long as they are living together and raising this child?

It doesn’t rationally make sense and neither does your cohabitation argument. A marriage between a man and a woman can always become valid in the eyes of the church because the church believes that marriage is about a woman and man getting married so even invalid situations between a man and a woman have the opportunity to become valid. A homosexual relationship will never be a valid relationship in the church unless the Pope comes out with some new idea about what marriage is. So far that hasn’t happened.

Posted by ralyge on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:47 PM (EST):

Archbishop Chaput offers a beautiful, balanced explanation as to why he made a similar school decision (http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3560). One thing that I believe would help prevent these unfortunate misunderstanding is a very clear and detailed mission and philosophy statement /statement of faith. Most Catholic schools state they “teach the Catholic faith.” However, if a “family” looking for a great education for their children were to look at the Catholics around them to determine what the Catholic faith teaches or the vague mission statements associated with these schools, they may assume “anything goes.” We may do well to learn from many private Christian schools that have very clear statements of faith that parents sign that they agree with in order to enroll and be accepted if this is the policy of Catholic schools.

Posted by Stephen M. O'Brien on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:46 PM (EST):

Catholics must unequivocally accept the truth of all the teachings of the Church on marriage and chastity, including her position on same-gender issues. Still, that does not mean that we must agree with the prudential judgments of Catholic school administrators who refuse to admit children of parents and guardians who are not living in accordance with Catholic teachings on same-sex issues. Despite their good intentions, I believe that the prudential decisions of those administrators in such cases are unnecessary and misguided—and, in fact, imprudent.

Please allow me to post this question to Catholics who agree with the thinking of the above administrators: are you also willing, out of consistency, to deny admission to all students whose mothers and fathers are cohabiting, or whose parents are living in marriages that are invalid according to the Church’s teachings on the sacrament of Matrimony?

Posted by Mary S. on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:36 AM (EST):

Sara you are making an emotional argument. There’s no logic to your argument only emotional diatribes. The point of the “Catholic” education was for Catholics to raise their children in the Catholic teaching. Homosexuals living in a open relationship are not living the Catholic teaching. I’m not going to argue that Catholic schools don’t have problems but I am arguing that we have to draw a line here at people who are living completely opposite of Catholic teaching. God has set a line for and hads judged homosexuality and that line is—no it’s against Church teaching.

If you have a logical argument against God’s judgment that homosexuality is wrong then please post and explain how two parents living in a homosexual and sinful relationship can possibly raise a Catholic child? I wouldn’t want to put my child in a private school that promotes homosexuality. Why would they want their child to go to a private Catholic school that promotes heterosexual marriage and teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong?

Posted by Sarah on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:07 AM (EST):

Why should the line be drawn at homosexual “couples”? Why not make that line include contracepting couples, people who are divorced, or those who commit adultery. And let’s not forget pornography users. Each of these things is just as destructive of the family structure and society as homosexuality is (in fact, perhaps even moreso because married people invite these disorders into their homes, families, and bedrooms willingly). In fact, while we’re purging Catholic schools of all the children who NEED to be there because they’re not going to learn Catholic values at home, let’s start making people write lists of their sins and pin them to their chests when they walk out the door in the morning. Then we can target the people who sin in private by using contraception, viewing porn, abusing their families, being self-righteous, hating their neighbor (and on and on and on) the same way we target people whose sin is public (like co-habitators, homosexuals, and women who get pregnant out of wedlock).
Now doesn’t the world feel like a better place with everyone’s darkest sins laid bare for everyone else to judge them (or better yet, kick their innocent child out of school because of what their parents did). It’s a good thing we don’t need God to be judge and ruler of us all, because we do such a great job of it oursevles.

Posted by C on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:42 AM (EST):

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is always an intrinsically evil act. It is contrary to natural law. In the case of school children it would be scandalous, because unlike the other sins you mentioned it is public. In regards to tolerance and charity. Tolerance is not charity. Most often we confuse being nice with charity. Being nice means not offending. To quote D.Q. McInerny,Ph.D., “A nice person is universally and indiscriminately tolerant, meaning that he is comprehensively nonjudgmental, meaning that he is a de facto subscriber to moral relativism. None of his words, none of his actions, are such that would ever give offense. He is a veritable virtuoso of inoffensiveness, because, among other things,he has trained himself to be super-sensitive to all the reigning super-sensitivities of our day. He is positively fluent in the sanitized language of Political Correctness.” Bottomline a nice person is not effective and not charitable. A charitable person would always act toward you out of charity,which means that it is your good, your genuine good, which he always has first in mind.

Posted by Ann on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:24 AM (EST):

I am tired of being asked to support Catholic schools. Part of my contributions in the Sunday offering are used to support them, but I cannot afford to send my children to these schools and they do not often do not follow Church teachings. Catholic schools should be for Catholic families that are TRYING to be faithful to the teachings of the Church. A lesbian couple is not trying to be faithful to the teachings of the Church. And yes, there are other in name only Catholics that shouldn’t be at these schools. The very fact that there are many who believe that CATHOLIC schools should be open to all is a sign that Catholic schools have lost their way. The very fact that non Catholics and non practicing Catholics demand to go to these schools is a sign that these schools have lost their way and have sold their souls to the devil to stay open. This should be a no brainer.

Posted by LindaB on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:54 AM (EST):

I think that the school may have had the best interests of everyone in mind. The school’s best interest,and the child’s best interest. Lets face it…why would they send their child in a school that openly teaches against their lifestyle. Personally, I would have been concerned that the lesbians were looking for their 15 minutes of fame at the school’s expense or that they did not fully understand church teaching on the subject. Yes there are Catholics who disregard church teaching in many way…using birth control,not attending Mass every Sunday and so on but homosexuality is an abomination.. In any case I think that the issue can be resolved if the schools get something in writing that they understand the churches teaching and that their child will be taught this in school. We do the same when we teach patients in the hospital. We have to document that they understood what they were taught.

Posted by John F. Kennedy on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:46 AM (EST):

Mary Rascher;
The two lesbians that you wrote about openly broke the “Living Catholic” agreement. They should be kicked out for that reason. Are we ALL sinners? Yes. Should we all repent? Yes. Have they? No. It’s one thing to occasionally sin and it’s another thing to purposely sin, intend on continuing and then declare it good, normal and “Catholic”.

Bob C.;
The two lesbians are punishing the children. If adult guardians make poor decisions, children very often suffer the consequences. BTW, it is biologically impossible to have “2 mommies.” It IS possible that one is. It is incorrect to call both “mommies.” They are what they are, no matter how many people want to call them something else.

Posted by Mary S. on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:40 AM (EST):

Hi Elyse,

You are right! Where do we stop? Where do we as Catholics draw a moral line? If your answer is “no where” then I think the Catholic church has a lot more problems than simply filling schools.

Don’t you think?

Posted by Dan Morgan on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:52 AM (EST):

Fantastic letter! There is an excellent article on this same topic by noted writer and lecturer Dale O’Leary at:

I don’t think the children should be punished. I was initially shocked recently when my 8 year old came home from her CCD class and told us about her friend who doesn’t have a dad but “2 mommies”. Since then I have seen the 2 women and yes this has caused a lot of thoughts, questions and confusion one can only imagine. But in the end I decided to leave this in Gods hands who already knew about this before I did. And since I already knew the little girl and mine were friends before I got this news, I decided to dismiss all reactionary impulses and just pray and seek God over this. Its just too big an issue for me. Believe it or not I live in the deep south (“bible belt”).

Posted by Elyse Crawford on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:42 AM (EST):

Mary S.,

Would there be enough children to fill our schools if we denied admission to all those with parents that do not follow “the Catholic tradition” as you see it? How many children should we deny based on their parents status as divorced; or those whose parents use birth control; or those whose parents do not attend church at all? Should we deny the many children attending who are currently enrolled but not Catholic?

Who would be left? Certainly we would lose a few families that genuinely strive to follow the teachings of Christ based simply on the fact that they would not feel comfortable sending their children to a school that lacks tolerance and love for their neighbors. I would not want to send my child to a school that does not promote Christian values of acceptance, and so would not feel comfortable sending her to St. Paul’s.

Elyse Crawford,
St. Paul’s Class of ‘89

Posted by Paul on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:25 AM (EST):

For more and more people, it has become so very handy to use
the “Gospel teaching” in a general way to substantiate pretty much any point of view they wish to make. “Out of context” references to the Bible have become a badly overused practice.
Political correctness has been used as an excuse for the serious redefinition of so many long-used terms in the dictionary that speaking clearly and admitting what you really mean is never acceptable.

Posted by Mary S. on Monday, May 17, 2010 9:33 PM (EST):

Mary,
The Church does not believe in Homosexuality. The purpose of a Catholic School is to raise our Catholic children in the Catholic tradition. How can two lesbian mothers raise a child Catholic when they themselves cannot live as Catholics because their lifestyle is in opposition to church teaching? Are you seriously saying that a nondisclosure is enough for us to ignore the fact that they are lesbians and that their child cannot possibly “live Catholic” with his family?
We don’t believe, as a church, in homosexuality. Are you saying that we should ignore the fact that they aren’t actually living Catholic as long as they sign a piece of paper?? This isn’t a case by case issue Mary. We are fighting a cultural war and the homosexual adgenda is out to change what the word “marriage” means. Should we ignore that, tell our kids that the homosexual lifestyle is okay, and allow them to continue their assualt on traditional marriage which has now moved to them trying to put their kids in Catholic schools?
Does a piece of paper really make it okay? Seriously?

Posted by Mary Rascher on Monday, May 17, 2010 5:21 PM (EST):

While I do agree that the second letter is much more clear and concise, I think admissions depends on many things including Catholic teaching. The reader really needs to know if the two mothers are “very openly gay” and if they would be willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement about their relationship. I know that sounds bad, and trust me, I am speaking sincerely from experience. I sent all of my children to Catholic Schools and I know I had to sign a form saying that our family followed Catholic teaching. The form included Mass attendance, contributions to our parish, sacramental life, etc.. that to me would include living in a legitimate family situation as defined by the Church. Why should that parent not be given the opportunity to consider this as terms of enrollment?

At the grade school my children attended, there was a lesbian mom with a second “mom” present in the home, but you would never know it if you weren’t in the close circle of friends of the parent. The child was not made to suffer nor feel bad about her situation, but then at the same time, the school did not water down teaching to accommodate the student either.

I don’t think an across the board policy could be issued either way. However, I also don’t think that holding parents responsible for providing a proper Catholic environment is out of the realm of responsibility or condition of enrollment either. If the parent is truly concerned about their child first and does not wish to cause scandal, I see no reason why the child shouldn’t attend or why the parents would balk at signing a “Living Catholic” agreement.

I guess my answer is that this really has to be considered on a case by case basis.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is a Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to This Rock magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."